Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Huckabee destroys his own candidacy (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   
Author Topic: Huckabee destroys his own candidacy
Kent
Member
Member # 832

 - posted      Profile for Kent   Email Kent   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Link

quote:
I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living god. And that’s what we need to do — is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards so it lines up with some contemporary view of how we treat each other and how we treat the family.
This is the beginning of the end for Huckabee, and I wager that after South Carolina, he starts to fade quickly.
Posts: 1434 | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Good.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Carlotta
Member
Member # 3117

 - posted      Profile for Carlotta   Email Carlotta   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I can't believe any serious politician would actually say something like that. Also, even though I'm pretty sure I agree with him on the issues he was talking about, he picked such a way of expressing it that it scares me. I will say, though I would want our president to have a good, honest, character, and I think religion can help develop this, I'm done with voting for people because they are a certain religion. It doesn't do a bit of good if you don't know what you're doing.
Posts: 1318 | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I am a broad spectrum Conservative (i.e. economic, social, and small government). I am also a Christian of on again off again faithfulness.

I oppose strongly his candidacy. Religion should fill one with some humility. Huck seems almost as self assured as many vegetarians and environmentalists. That doesn't inspire me with any confidence.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
drewmie
Member
Member # 1179

 - posted      Profile for drewmie   Email drewmie   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What's wrong with "self assured"? I'm far more afraid of the arrogance of Jerry Falwell and his crowd. And Huckabee is a breath of fresh air after that kind of skewed Christianity. His policies seem very tolerant and friendly to all kinds of different Americans. The guy's a populist, which is pretty far from Falwell's soldiers.

And frankly, what's wrong with "God's standard"? Unless we know precisely what standard he's implying, isn't it silly to assume the worst? On the other hand, I guess that's an understandable reaction after so many years of the Christian Coalition.

We LDS (Mormons) have seen a lot of animosity from Southern Baptists for a very long time. Thankfully, I just don't hear the same attitude from this guy. He's getting a lot of flak because of rhetorical style, instead of for his actual positions and policies.

[ January 15, 2008, 05:13 PM: Message edited by: drewmie ]

Posts: 3702 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"His policies seem very tolerant and friendly to all kinds of different Americans."

You mean this statement, which is about amending the constitution in discriminatory ways towards gays, and banning abortion? Note the word "ban," there, a position supported by a small minority of americans.

Or his position that biblical creationism should be taught in science classrooms?

Or his position that schools should display the ten commandments?

Abstinence only sex education?

Sending federal money to faith-based organizations for welfare?

Look, I respect a lot of the man's political positions... his economics looks pretty good from my perspective, for a republican, and I think he's genuinely concerned for americans, and wants whats best for people.

Unfortunately, what he thinks is best for people seems to be legislated christianity.

[ January 15, 2008, 05:22 PM: Message edited by: Everard ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kent
Member
Member # 832

 - posted      Profile for Kent   Email Kent   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The problem with "God's Standard" is that it is obviously not clear. It presupposes he knows what God would have us legislate. Isn't it silly to even use this kind of language in an election? Isn't it disconcerting to you that he is bringing religion into the political discussion?

(By the way, thanks for your post Drewmie, it will ensure my thread lasts more than a day).

Posts: 1434 | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Saying Huckabee intends to replace the Constitution with the laws of the Old Testament is probably an unjust attack upon him. Most probably he was referring to the following two statements in his political program, copied verbatim from his campaign website:
quote:
Sanctity of Life
I support and have always supported passage of a constitutional amendment to protect the right to life. My convictions regarding the sanctity of life have always been clear and consistent, without equivocation or wavering. I believe that Roe v. Wade should be over-turned.

and
quote:
Marriage
I support and have always supported passage of a federal constitutional amendment that defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman. As President, I will fight for passage of this amendment. My personal belief is that marriage is between one man and one woman, for life.

As regards the first of these, the 2004 Republican Party national platform included the words,
quote:
Human Life Amendment to the Constitution
We must keep our pledge to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence. That is why we say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the 14th Amendment's protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions.

and
quote:
Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage
We strongly support a Constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage, and we [oppose] forcing states to recognize other living arrangements as equivalent to marriage. The well-being of children is best accomplished [when] nurtured by their mother & father anchored by the bonds of marriage. We believe that legal recognition and the accompanying benefits afforded couples should be preserved for that unique and special union of one man and one woman which has historically been called marriage.

Huckabee's views may make him more or less acceptable to Republican voters, but it is unfair to call him an extremist for advocating measures so similar to the national platform of his own party.
Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Huckabee's views may make him more or less acceptable to Republican voters, but it is unfair to call him an extremist for advocating measures so similar to the national platform of his own party."

Who called him an extremist? His views might be what about 30-40% of americans support, which doesn't make him an extremist. The combination of his views, however, does make him a "legislative christian," for lack of a better term. And to say that crowd is "tolerant" or "friendly towards other positions," is mistaken.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kent
Member
Member # 832

 - posted      Profile for Kent   Email Kent   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
hobsen, while I may agree with the platform (but not on how to enact it), I disagree with the assumption that God is on his side and his standards should be enacted into legislation.
Posts: 1434 | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
They should stand on their own merits. Part of my problem with him is that he provides so much ammunition to those similar to Ev who would love to paint Republicans as some kind of religious wackos, thereby easily dismissing their positions without engaging them.

So this cycle I'd like to give the religious dude a pass. Additionally, if Ev supports his economic policies, that's the kiss of death as far as I'm concerned. [Wink]

Self rightous is a more accurate term. I can't listen to him without hearing Falwell but with dampered rhetoric and more charisma.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Part of my problem with him is that he provides so much ammunition to those similar to Ev who would love to paint Republicans as some kind of religious wackos, thereby easily dismissing their positions without engaging them."

Really? I've engaged many of these issues all over ornery, flydye. or are you just making **** up about me so you can easily dismiss me without engaging me?

[ January 15, 2008, 05:43 PM: Message edited by: Everard ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Note I said similar, not you.

I'm more then happy to engage you. There are, granted, much more reflexively dismissive libs here.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
How are people who reflexively dismiss similar to people who engage the topics before coming to a conclusion, or who are not afraid to engage the discussion after reaching a conclusion?
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ow, Ev, that hurt my head.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Decisions like Roe v. Wade have already made a mockery of the constitution. People like Huckabee are merely backlashing against that and proposing an amendment to prevent future meddling.

Sorry, but the left-leaning activist types have only themselves to blame. They raped the constitution for decades, and now cry foul when the religious crazies propose to do the same.

Cry me a river. This is exactly why the constitution should have been respected in the first place and not mangled by ideologically driven courts.

I'll say this for Huckabee though: at least his proposal to amend the constitution actually would be democratic. At least he's not proposing that judges just "interpret" the constitution to get to the conclusion he desires.

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoverOfJoy
Member
Member # 157

 - posted      Profile for LoverOfJoy   Email LoverOfJoy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Perhaps a better way of saying what I think flydye was getting at is:

" he provides so much ammunition to those with points of view similar to Ev but who would love to paint Republicans as some kind of religious wackos, thereby easily dismissing their positions without engaging them"

Pick a political pundit with similar views to Everard. Just about every one would "love to paint Republicans as ..." Nearly every liberal blowhard blogger would probably fit into this category.

But then, I'm not flydye so take my interpretation with a grain of salt.

Posts: 3639 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
An exit poll from the Michigan primary suggests Born-Again and Evangelical Christians preferred Romney to Huckabee by a small margin. That looks good for Romney and sort of pathetic for Huckabee. And it suggests conservative Christians are not as monolithic and predictable a voting bloc as has sometimes been argued.
Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tezcatlipoca
Member
Member # 1312

 - posted      Profile for Tezcatlipoca     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Huckabee for Caliph.
Posts: 1272 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paladine
Member
Member # 1932

 - posted      Profile for Paladine   Email Paladine   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't get what's so ridiculous here. He's not proposing that he impose his beliefs upon others against their will. He's trying to convince his fellow citizens to get behind a Constitutional amendment. It beats the hell out of the way "progressive" forces in this country have been dishonestly pushing their political agenda through the judiciary when unable to do so through the elected branches.

I wish more people would state as honestly and forthrightly what they believe, and put their ideas out there as a part of the democratic process. Democratic governments are *supposed* to be responsive to the beliefs of their people. In a country where the vast majority of people believe in God, I don't see anything all that crazy about expecting religious morality to play some role in shaping peoples' view of the society in which they want to live. Good for Mike Huckabee.

Posts: 3235 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"In a country where the vast majority of people believe in God, I don't see anything all that crazy about expecting religious morality to play some role in shaping peoples' view of the society in which they want to live."

No, there's nothing ridiculous about it. But when those people expect people who don't share their religious views to live by those religious views, then don't expect us to see them as anything other then terrible and dangerous candidates.

" It beats the hell out of the way "progressive" forces in this country have been dishonestly pushing their political agenda through the judiciary when unable to do so through the elected branches."

Uh huh. Because using the courts to protect the rights of the politically unpowerful is "dishonest." Thats pretty much what the appellate level of the courts is FOR.

[ January 16, 2008, 06:35 AM: Message edited by: Everard ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paladine
Member
Member # 1932

 - posted      Profile for Paladine   Email Paladine   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
No, there's nothing ridiculous about it. But when those people expect people who don't share their religious views to live by those religious views, then don't expect us to see them as anything other then terrible and dangerous candidates.
I guess I just don't share your hostility for religions with which I disagree. Plenty of people want society to move in directions with which I disagree. I don't think that makes them terrible or dangerous.

That's not to say that some religionists *aren't* terrible and dangerous, because they certainly are. But the fact that a guy wants marriage to be defined asbetween a man and a woman means he wants to set up a caliphate? I just can't buy it.

quote:
Uh huh. Because using the courts to protect the rights of the politically unpowerful is "dishonest." Thats pretty much what the appellate level of the courts is FOR.
Using the courts to create a "right" to have an abortion on nebulous, amorphous "Constitutional" grounds against the will of the people and in defiance of the understanding of those who wrote and ratified the relevent constitutional passages is dishonest. Using the unelected branch of government to circumvent the will of the people in the name of better, more equitable policy is dishonest and anti-democratic.

Courts don't exist to "protect the rights of the politically unpowerful", much though the Left would like for them to. Courts exist, or at least are SUPPOSED to exist in a democracy, in order to enforce the law without fear or favor. That means they exist for strong and for weak, for big and for small. Not as the vanguard leading the way along the march to "progress" which stirs the liberal heart.

[ January 16, 2008, 06:51 AM: Message edited by: Paladine ]

Posts: 3235 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
In a country where the vast majority of people believe in God, I don't see anything all that crazy about expecting religious morality to play some role in shaping peoples' view of the society in which they want to live. Good for Mike Huckabee.
The problem is that it springs explicitly from religious beliefs, not from democratic principles. What next?
quote:
Using the courts to create a "right" to have an abortion on nebulous, amorphous "Constitutional" grounds against the will of the people and in defiance of the understanding of those who wrote and ratified the relevent constitutional passages is dishonest.
If the majority get to decide what abstract rights we are allowed, then free speech will certainly go away, followed by our right to privacy. Sure, a Constitutional amendment can pretty much put anything into the Basic Principles that underlie our Democracy. I can think of a lot of creative ways to define who we are so that we are all more alike than we might wish. For example, it only makes sense for people to obey the 10 Commandments, regardless of what God you do or don't believe in. How could it possibly hurt to put them into an Amendment?
quote:
Courts don't exist to "protect the rights of the politically unpowerful", much though the Left would like for them to. Courts exist, or at least are SUPPOSED to exist in a democracy, in order to enforce the law without fear or favor.
Yes, that is well put. We just have to make sure that the Constitution also doesn't embody the morals of a religious segment that the courts would then enforce without fear or favor.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paladine
Member
Member # 1932

 - posted      Profile for Paladine   Email Paladine   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The problem is that it springs explicitly from religious beliefs, not from democratic principles. What next?
If you view the two to be incompatable, I can understand why you might have a problem with it. Although, again, in fairness I fail to understand how a nation which from its inception has declared God to be the origin of the rights of man can hold religious and democratic principles to be mutually exclusive. That's not to say we should have a Church of America or that having one would be in keeping with this country's traditions. Quite the opposite.

It is to say, however, that wanting to shape public policy in such a way that one's religious morality dictates is anti-democratic or anti-American. A great many people fought for the abolition of slavery because they were willing to die to make men free, as Christ had died to make them holy. Much of what we are today as a nation has flowed from what men felt compelled by their faith to do.

quote:
If the majority get to decide what abstract rights we are allowed, then free speech will certainly go away, followed by our right to privacy.
Welcome to Democracy. [Wink]

The majority eventually gets its way in a democratic system of government, including constitutional systems. The question is whether we make some things harder to change than others, and if so which, and then how to go about changing them when we decide we want or need to. The Framers decided to list certain rights in the Constitution, and to leave other rights which were understood to be held by them and their contemporaries entact via the 9th and 10th Amendments. In the event that society's needs and expectations should evolve, they left us an amendment process of which we've many times availed ourselves.

Governor Huckabee has proposed that we avail ourselves of it again. In doing so, he's sought to rectify a serious challenge posed to our democracy by the burgeoning powers of the judiciary. There wasn't a person alive in the United States in 1789 who would have read the Constitution and conclude that it created a right to legal abortion. Indeed, virtually everyone across the political spectrum would have rightly told you that the 10th Amendment conferred power upon the states to regulate in this area, as the majority of them did at the time. The same would have been true when the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868.

Indeed, as Justice Rhenquist wrote in his dissent:

"To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment. As early as 1821, the first state law dealing directly with abortion was enacted by the Connecticut Legislature. By the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, there were at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion. While many States have amended or updated their laws, 21 of the laws on the books in 1868 remain in effect today."

This is what the Left has had our courts doing for the past half-century: inventing "rights" which are totally alien to anyone reading the language which ostensibly guarantees those rights in proper historical context. This is fundamentally less honest and less democratic than what Governor Huckabee proposes.

Posts: 3235 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I guess I just don't share your hostility for religions with which I disagree.
You don't disagree with the majority religion.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Courts don't exist to "protect the rights of the politically unpowerful", much though the Left would like for them to. Courts exist, or at least are SUPPOSED to exist in a democracy, in order to enforce the law without fear or favor."

At the appellate level, one of the major functions of the courts is to make sure that the laws passed (almost by definition, laws passed are going to be passed by the politically powerful) are not contrary to the constitution. Since one of the major areas of constitutional law is individual rights and freedoms, my statement stands.

Courts are supposed to enforce the law without fear or favor... but are also, and this occurs at the appellate level, supposed to make sure the law is itself legal.

My statement stands.

"But the fact that a guy wants marriage to be defined asbetween a man and a woman means he wants to set up a caliphate?"

And, of course, has at least a dozen or so other positions where he wants to move his religion into government, many of which I pointed out in a previous post on this very thread.

"I guess I just don't share your hostility for religions with which I disagree"

I'm not hostile to religions, necessarily, so much as I am hostile to LEGISLATED religion.

Nice strawman and attempt to poison the well, though.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
A great many people fought for the abolition of slavery because they were willing to die to make men free, as Christ had died to make them holy
Which is good, because it increases individual freedoms. Who cares what their private reason was for making sure that others had the same opportunities to pursue life, liberty and their own happiness that they did.
quote:
There wasn't a person alive in the United States in 1789 who would have read the Constitution and conclude that it created a right to legal abortion.
This is dead wrong. Abortion before quickening was not considered wrong or morally reprehensible and didn't need to be explicitly noted for people to know that. In some places, a woman who had an abortion after quickening was breaking the law, but AFAIK nowhere was that considered murder.

The Constitution both represents universal principles and uses language that is limited by the knowledge of nature and man that was available to the founders at the time. They didn't anticipate a great many things that are possible today, but they tried to encode principles that would guide us independent of changes in technology or any particular God. If we want to honor their Gods, we would enshrine deist principles and laws, not conservative Christian ones. If you want to ensure that the Constitution is up to date, we should vote a new one in every decade as an adjunct to doing the census.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Huckabee would have no power to alter the Constitution even if he were elected. He might suggest an amendment providing that anyone who performs an abortion should be put to death, and that any woman undergoing an abortion should be punished by five years in a federal prison. If he could then persuade both houses of Congress - probably Democratic controlled - to pass such legislation, he could then sign it. And after being ratified by two-thirds? of the state legislatures, it would then become part of the Constitution and supersede any other parts which conflicted with it.

Unlikely as it is that such a measure would become law, however, Huckabee still has a legal right to advocate it. Any citizen has a legal right to advocate any change to the Constitution; the Founders put no limits at all upon how it could be amended. Citizens can advocate amendments to prevent women from voting, to have all blacks sold at public auction as slaves, or require all government employees to swear that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Once the Constitution has been amended, that would be the law. The only restraints on this power are the common sense of our citizens, and the fact the Founders made the Constitution fairly difficult to amend. But that is not sacrosanct either, as nothing prevents passing an amendment that says the Constitution may be amended by a majority vote of the House of Representatives. Or so I believe, but someone with formal legal training might be able to convince me I am wrong, as I am definitely not an expert on Constitutional law.

Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Huckabee would have no power to alter the Constitution even if he were elected. He might suggest an amendment...
Hobsen, that's all true, but having a President who would offer amendments that go against common sense or are incompatible with the rest of the Constitution is what is troubling. I have no doubt that a President who tried to pass the ones you hypothesize would fail today and be excoriated for the attempts. The two problems are what kind of President would we have who views the world through such thick and colored glasses. The other is that you can start small by chipping away at freedoms and never know when exactly you gave them away for a song.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Omega M.
Member
Member # 1392

 - posted      Profile for Omega M.     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes, as Ron Paul says, "Amending the Constitution is Constitutional!" And if the Supreme Court says that abortion is a Constitutional right, what else can people do to get it banned?

I agree, though, that the public would disregard an amendment banning abortion at least as much as it disregarded the Prohibition amendment.

Posts: 1966 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

There wasn't a person alive in the United States in 1789 who would have read the Constitution and conclude that it created a right to legal abortion.

This is dead wrong. Abortion before quickening was not considered wrong or morally reprehensible and didn't need to be explicitly noted for people to know that. In some places, a woman who had an abortion after quickening was breaking the law, but AFAIK nowhere was that considered murder.

You are confusing several separate arguments.

Firstly, the statement wasn't that "there wasn't a person alive who would have considered abortion to be morally ok", but that there was not a person alive who would have considered it to be a right under the constitution.

Two very separate statements. Your statement that abortion was not considered "murder" is irrelevent in two ways.

Firstly, the question is its legality or illegality, not its status as "murder" versus some lesser crime.

Secondly, the fact that some jurisdictions may have considered abortion to be legal at any stage has nothing to do with whether or not there is a "right" to abortion built into the constitution.

There is nothing inconsistent, for example, about passing a law that makes all abortions perfectly legal and correct, WITHOUT reading any such right into the constitution.

On the other hand, there is something very inconsistent about having laws in various jurisdictions banning abortions (whether framed as murder or some lesser crime) and yet having a constitution that purportedly guarantees a right to have an abortion. Your argument is the one that is completely inconsistent and nonsensical.

The premise behind Ev et al's position, that the constition protects rights that weren't rights at the time the document was written, is ludicrous. It makes absolutely no logical sense. The only way it could make sense is if the framers inserted these rights in as "time bombs", to go off when society was ready for them.

There is no argument you can possibly make that will cause me to succumb to the delusion that the U.S. constitution demands a "right" to an abortion, let alone a "right" to a same sex marriage. As a lawyer, I make technical legal arguments all the time, but this one is too much even for me to stomach.

Roe v. Wade is utter garbage. I don't care how right abortion is, that does not redeem one of the worst pieces of legal horse**** I have ever seen in my life.

[ January 16, 2008, 10:06 AM: Message edited by: jasonr ]

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That is an excellent point, DaveS. Changing the law is always bad in itself, as it confuses people, even if the change itself is good. And radical change requires a lot more justification.

And I agree with both your points, Omega.

Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"The premise behind Ev et al's position, that the constition protects rights that weren't rights at the time the document was written, is ludicrous. It makes absolutely no logical sense."

Of course it makes no sense. Its also not the premise behind my argument. See if you can figure out why not.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DaveS
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
There is nothing inconsistent, for example, about passing a law that makes all abortions perfectly legal and correct, WITHOUT reading any such right into the constitution.

On the other hand, there is something very inconsistent about having laws in various jurisdictions banning abortions (whether framed as murder or some lesser crime) and yet having a constitution that purportedly guarantees a right to have an abortion. Your argument is the one that is completely inconsistent and nonsensical.

This is inconsistent. I view the lack of clarity in the Constitution on this issue to be similar to the Framers' failure to account for sophisticated weapons in the 2nd Amendment and electronic surveillance in the 4th. There are laws to limit what kinds of weapons you can buy, even though the 2nd doesn't talk about them and says that right shall not be infringed. Do you have the right to own a nuclear weapon?

Does the 9th Amendment mean anything where it says: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." If practice in the time the Constitution and Amendments were drafted allowed abortion, how can you say women could have an abortion, but they didn't have the right?

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Huckabee would have no power to alter the Constitution even if he were elected. He might suggest an amendment providing that anyone who performs an abortion should be put to death, and that any woman undergoing an abortion should be punished by five years in a federal prison. If he could then persuade both houses of Congress - probably Democratic controlled - to pass such legislation, he could then sign it. And after being ratified by two-thirds? of the state legislatures, it would then become part of the Constitution and supersede any other parts which conflicted with it.

Welcome to a Representative Republic. Thank God.

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Do you have the right to own a nuclear weapon?
You bet I do!

How can I possible feel safe and secure in my home if I know that my next-door neighbor has a 10 kiloton nuclear device and I don't? [Eek!] [Wink]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Speaking of religious presidents; has Bush ever actually put forth and amendment to ban SSM? Forget taking us to war under false pretenses. I think even the religious can agree that in this he is a "liar".

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KnightEnder
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
After saying that can Huckabee even 'be' elected president under the Constitution? I mean wouldn't that constitute an establishment of religion? Just a thought. [Smile]

KE

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
This is inconsistent. I view the lack of clarity in the Constitution on this issue to be similar to the Framers' failure to account for sophisticated weapons in the 2nd Amendment and electronic surveillance in the 4th. There are laws to limit what kinds of weapons you can buy, even though the 2nd doesn't talk about them and says that right shall not be infringed. Do you have the right to own a nuclear weapon?
The fact that the constitution is silent on the existence of a right to an abortion is not indicative of a "lack of clarity". The burden is on those purporting to show a positive right to abortion enshrined in the constitution to point out where it does this, not on the opposition to prove a negative, namely that the constitution specifically denies a right to abortion!

And furthermore, I deny the analogy between a right to an abortion and a right to a nuclear weapon. Abortion, even back in the 19th century, was not science fiction. There is no scientific development since the time of the constitution that suddenly renders previous interpretations somehow obsolete.

And even if that was the case, and some new technology dramatically changed the nature of abortion, such that the entire issue would need to be revisited, it is highly implausible that this could lead to the creation of a positive "right" that wasn't already there.

quote:
Does the 9th Amendment mean anything where it says: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." If practice in the time the Constitution and Amendments were drafted allowed abortion, how can you say women could have an abortion, but they didn't have the right?
My understanding is that practices were such that in some jurisdictions it was legal and in other jurisdictions it was not legal. By definition, a right is universal; if something is allowed in some places and not allowed in other places, it cannot be a "right". Certainly, it cannot be a right within the meaning of the 9th amendment.

By your logic, if gambling were legal in one state of the union at the time the 9th amendment was passed, then gambling would be a protected "right" under the 9th amendment and every state purporting to regulate or ban it would be violating the constitution.

At most, carried to its proper conclusion, your logic would require abortion to be a "right" in the states in which it was already a "right", but not in the states in which it was not a "right". But it certainly doesn't follow that abortion must be legal across the union, simply because some jurisdictions didn't make it illegal at the time of the constitution.

And incidentally, Roe v. Wade was not decided on the basis of the 9th amendment in any event, although it did figure into one of the concurring opinions, as I recall.

quote:
"The premise behind Ev et al's position, that the constition protects rights that weren't rights at the time the document was written, is ludicrous. It makes absolutely no logical sense."

Of course it makes no sense. Its also not the premise behind my argument. See if you can figure out why not.

Ev, I am familiar with all the arguments in favour of abortion as a right in the constitution, and can guess what yours are. But before I do that, let me try to clarify my point and your position.

I stated that at the time the constitution was drafted, abortion was not a "right", a right being defined (by me) as some universal guarantee that a person will be permitted to perform some activity without hindrance or interference. A right, by its very nature, is universal.

Are you saying there was such a universal "right" in the United States at the time the 9th and 14th amendments were drafted?

If you are not saying that, then what part of the premise that I outlined (and there was only one premise) do you disagree with?

[ January 16, 2008, 11:04 AM: Message edited by: jasonr ]

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Are you saying there was such a universal "right" in the United States at the time the 9th and 14th amendments were drafted?

If you are not saying that, then what part of the premise that I outlined (and there was only one premise) do you disagree with?"

Two major problems with your premise:

1) The constitution doesn't define a right in the same way you do.

2) The question is not whether something is a right or is not a right, but is recognized as a right.

[ January 16, 2008, 11:03 AM: Message edited by: Everard ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1